Why change the meaning of the word marriage? What's the advantage over using the term "civil union"? Political correctness isn't only irritating and insulting, it's often needlessly confusing. Wouldn't honesty work better?
As California officials rush to allow gays to marry in just a couple of weeks, the state's voters will get the chance to overturn that decision in November.
A petition to define marriage in the state's constitution as between a man and woman has been certified as successful by the California secretary of state. So voters will decide the issue Nov. 4.
Meanwhile, attorneys general from 10 states have asked the California Supreme Court to delay the effective date of its recent ruling allowing gay marriage, in order to prevent chaos from spreading. If marriage licenses are handed out to gays beginning June 17, as planned, the attorneys general from other states fear costly and complicated legal battles over those marriages being recognized in their states.
And, they rightly point out, the legal complications would turn out to be wholly unnecessary if California voters end up banning gay marriage in their constitution Nov. 4.
Another potential snafu even greater than that one: What if California courts have the unbridled gall to rule the constitutional amendment unconstitutional? It sounds silly to even say it, but would you put that past today's judges -- to try to overrule the people's wishes in writing their own constitution?
Regardless, the proposed constitutional amendment will make the November election even more fascinating and pivotal. The debate and the campaigning will be fierce. And, since it is California, the outcome will be viewed as a bellwether for the rest of the nation.
Indeed, if the headlong rush to legalize gay marriage can be turned back in California, it can be blunted anywhere.
Early polls indicate it will be close, with some saying it will pass and others saying it will fail.
This is as it should be. Judges cannot and should not be the final arbiters on such an important societal issue. The people must decide.
Regardless of the outcome, Californians will get the kind of society they wish.
Comments
Why change the meaning of the word marriage? What's the advantage over using the term "civil union"? Political correctness isn't only irritating and insulting, it's often needlessly confusing. Wouldn't honesty work better?
Yeah, who needs terms like civil rights. It's so confusing to the right-wing. Now, Jim Crow is a term the right-wing can get behind and support.
shivas, Many here would love for you go to California, marry your boyfriend, campaign for Nobama, and take up residence there.
Not me..I'd miss you, shivas. At least you say what you think. I may never agree but at least I get to hear the other side.
certain segments of our society "own" words (i.e. it is okay for them to say the words, but because of my race, gender, and sexual orientation i cannot say these same words). i don't want to align myself with those jerks: if someone wants to say they are married and pay the appropriate license fees, why should i have a problem with that? calling yourself married still doesn't ignore the fact that homosexual behavior is aberrant from the norm - really, it's pathetic how desperate the gay community is to become part of mainstream heterosexual society. why doesn't the queer nation invent their own term describing gay marriage and use the courts to protect the word from heterosexuals?
how about ..........lollipop? brucey and i are going to get lollipopped this weekend? who cares really? tax laws and health laws do discriminate but my solution would be to do away with taxes that are discrimanatory and unfair. death tax, progressive income tax, property tax. it is a distraction from the unconstitutional behaviors of the govt.
You may have heard this story over and over again, but here goes: A gay couple invests a lifetime of resources and money into their relationship. Then one dies. Legal rights are disputed by bitter family members and the existing will is challenged and possibly nullified. I personally know a gay couple where the surviving "spouse" went through all of this heartachce and agony.
I am 100% against gay couples being married in the Judeo/Christian definition; however, I am pro-legal union. A simple contract will recognize the couple as spirtually and legally bound without infringing on the tenets of moral crusaders -- and justly, I do not use the term "moral crusader" in a negative way. Citizens who stand up for their moral convictions are a necessary segment of this country's mental health. But, homosexuality is here to stay and we must deal with it.
avidreader, you completely miss the point for gays. i, too, know several couples who are outraged that they cannot MARRY. the words "pro-legal union" or anything else are not the object of conquest: they want the word! this is the exact same conquest that has occurred in other elements of society, where some lay claim to a word and all the power implied by their ability to freely use it & persecute those who may not. why don't heterosexuals just admit defeat and give the gays their word?
Other than the " Polictical correct " part, I agree with PT's 5:31 am post.
Wow ScDawg, that was such an intelligent post. Now, go feed your chained-up pitbulls, and tidy-up around the trailor. Those bud cans in the front yard are getting to the point that their covering-up the hubcap collection.
shivas and scdawg, your back-and-forth attacks are a preview of what we'll be seeing for the next 5 months between dems and repubs on these posts.
It doesn't matter: gays/lesbians should have to pay alimony and support when they split, just like hetro's do. Call it anything you want, just make it damn near impossible for ANYONE to divorce. That will save our children and make people commit to something for a change.
Shivas, one more time-which civil right in the US Constitution says [filtered word] have a "right" to marry? Marriage has been between man and woman since the dawn of time. As for Jim Crow, history tells us it was the good ole boy Southern DIMocRATS who wrote and enforced all those Jim Crow laws. Your absolute istupidity is amazing. As for those 10 states that are worried, why haven't they passed a law or revised their constitution to refect marriage as between man and woman?
Tall2 are you sayig two queeers can have children? Last I heard, tht was impossible (biologically). As for "marriage", it comes from Judeo-Christian culture. Bone, who says we non-[filtered word] have lost? Two stattes, both the two most liberal in the US, does not make it legal in 48 (not 55 as Osama says-ya know-the 57 he visited).
Jack: some of these folks have children. How it happened, I trust your parents educated you on that one, lol.
The only motivation gays and lesbians have to being called married is to gain social benefits. That is WRONG.
tall2, maybe your parents missed part of your education if you believe any of "these folks" have their own biological children (hint: it ain't possible for a square peg etc etc)
tall2, i disagree. a couple is a couple and just because they are of the same sex that shouldn't figure into them receivng benefits. some of these homosexuals are as productive, if not more, than their hetero counterparts. they exist, hold jobs and even serve you your fries and big mac. why aren't they just as entitled?
If the gay community was to challenge the meaning of marriage & the right of the states to regulate who can legally marry, and they prevailed with the U.S.Supreme Court, would Christian pastors,Jewish rabbis, and Islamic imams be forced to conduct marriage ceremonies between two men or two women ?Then wouldn't polygamists have precedence for their right to marry multiple partners ?Couldn't the legal problems of same sex unions be settled with wills,trusts,powers of attorney,etc. ?These are some things people need to ask before they jump on the "same-sex marriage" band wagon.And for those who think such problems won't come up, who would have thought 30 years ago that same-sex marriage would ever be thought of,much less voted on ?
shivas, To set you straight, Mike Vick (not white Mike Vick) is your pit bull man / trailor is spelled trailer( and the only one I own hauls my ski boat) / I drink bottled beer (not malt liquor like you) / my pay check comes from an employer (not from Uncle Sam like you and most of your friends) and I do not tolerate Islaamic terrorists or promote putting someone who negotiates with them in charge of our country.
LaTwon. your humorous post of 8:24 hits all the right buttons. Mark Twain told a humorous story that ended with "...calling it a leg don't make it a leg.".
What damage exactly does two gays getting married do to the straights world?
Deim dey gays get the same beneies as married couples, spouses' insurance plan, ss beenies, medical beenies, head of household, all dem good bennies, you bunch of dumb rocks!!! Dumb it down boy, tear it down boy, the ant and the grasshopper!!!! Hope the ant don't leave!!!
LaTwon, I agree with you. Flat tax for everyone or a national sales tax so everyone pays their correct share. Why not reverse the words to Legal Civil Union between a man and a woman and marriage for the queers? They then get the word they want so badly.
Actually it's not the word but the legal protections that we want. After having worked together to build our own home and furnish it and build an entire life with each other my partner and I have none of the protections under the law that heterosexual couples are afforded. If one of us gets in a car accident the other can be denied the right to hold our hand and say goodbye by a nurse or doctor that doesn't believe our relationship is moral. If one of us were to die, the family of the other could legally go after the house that we have built together. If I want to put him on my insurance policy at work, it is then taxed as income. If your religion doesn't recognize gay relationships that is fine. The problem is our state and federal governments recognize certain relationships to be above others. Our constitution says "equal for all" not just for those we agree with. Most social change has been brought about by the courts. That is one of the reasons our forefathers had the foresight to put the separation of powers in place. The will of the many rarely looks after the will of the few. I will leave your religious beliefs to you as long as you keep them out of our government
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
